Last week, a reader named Caitlin e-mailed Shakesville blogmistress Melissa McEwan — who had written about being heartbroken by Thompson's decision to sign — with a proposal. Caitlin is a student at Exeter University, where Thompson was scheduled to speak last night, and knew she'd have the opportunity to meet the actor. In her e-mail, Caitlin wrote: "I have set up a petition online, in the hopes that I can hand her a list of names and comments next week from the online community (and my own university, hopefully) showing our dismay at her decision to sign the Roman Polanski petition."

The petition got 410 signatures and numerous comments, which Caitlin brought to her meeting with Thompson last night. In a follow-up e-mail to Shakesville, Caitlin writes:

Emma did not have much time between meetings, but she gave me all of the time that she had. I asked her why she had signed the petition, and she explained about how well she knows Polanski, how terrible his life has been, and how forgiving the survivor of the rape all those years ago now is. She said she thought the intentions of the judge were unclear, as were the intentions of those who arrested him recently. She told me that a lot of her friends had rung her up asking her to sign the petition, so there had been a certain amount of pressure. She said that she had already been thinking a lot about the petition, as others had expressed their dismay at her signing it.

I handed her our petition and the comments. She read them both through thoroughly, and came back to me. She said, while she supported Polanski as a friend, a crime is a crime. I don't know whether she had realised the extent of Polanski's crime, but she is now fully aware. She will remove her name from the petition – in fact, she said she would call today and sort it out. Even though, she stressed, Polanski has had some truly terrible experiences in his lifetime, experiences that we couldn't even imagine and which should not be taken out of the equation, she agreed that she could not put her name to a petition asking for his release.

Assuming that she will be true to her word, her name will be removed in the very near future. Hopefully the press will pick up on it.

She left me with this, to pass on to everyone who has signed the petition/raised awareness of this issue: "Know that I will remove my name because of you, and all of the good work that you have been doing. I have read your petition. I have heard you. And I will listen."

If she follows through, hooray for Thompson — and either way, hooray for Caitlin, who had the guts to use a brief meeting with a celebrity to do what many of us have wanted to over the last month: Ask what the fuck went through her head before she signed. And it sounds like the usual — he's suffered, he's charming, the victim wants it dropped, judicial shenanigans, all the cool kids are signing — minus any thought of what he actually did to the victim in 1977, before fleeing the country. Lévy conveniently left any mention about that out of his petition, but Caitlin did not. And that information is rather crucial to making a decision about whether to call for leaving poor old Polanski alone. I've been wondering the whole time how many of his supporters have taken a good look at it, and how many just got a phone call saying, "It's a witch hunt — sign this" and agreed.

Here's hoping not only that Thompson makes that call, but that her change of heart gets enough real media attention for other celebrity signatories of the Free Polanski petition to think twice about who and what, exactly, they agreed to stand up for.

Emma Update [Shakesville]

Related: Polanski Business: In Which Emma Thompson Breaks My Heart [Shakesville]
Dear Emma... [Shakesville]

Earlier: Letters From Hollywood: Roman Polanski's Rape Of Child No Big Thing

In Damien Cave's profile of three antiabortion activists, one key line stands out. It's a favorite maxim of James Pouillon, the protester who was killed in front of Owosso High School last month. "It's all about the eyes," he said, "It's all about the eyes." And it was, apparently, Pouillon's signs depicting aborted fetuses that made Harlan Drake angry enough to kill him. These signs are also a fixture in abortion clinic protests around the country — but it wasn't always so.

According to Cave, it used to be all about the arms. Then came the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which barred protesters from using "force, threat of force or physical obstruction" to keep women from getting abortions. Anti-abortion activists had to turn to other tactics, and that's when the anti-choice shock sign was born. Protester Chet Gallagher says all people, including kids, need to see his signs. He tells Cave, "I know I offend a lot of people. But I've talked to mothers who said, ‘Because you were there with those signs I decided to have that baby.'"

Not everyone agrees. Monica Migliorino Miller is a theology professor who has taken many iconic images (that's one of her less graphic ones above) of what she says are aborted fetuses. However, she no longer approves of displaying gory pictures, and doesn't think they should be aimed at kids because "they can't intellectualize what they're seeing."

Then there's the issue of what the photos actually show. Miller says she has retrieved many of the fetuses she photographs from loading docks and dumpsters. She doesn't mention whether or not she found medical records along with them, but it seems difficult to determine the exact details of their abortions, or what the remains actually looked like before they were discarded. Especially problematic is the case of "Malachi," an iconic aborted fetus not photographed by Miller. Activist Rhonda Mackey reportedly found "Malachi" frozen in a jar along with other fetuses. The jar was then stored without freezing for a month. Then a doctor apparently reconstructed "Malachi" so the fetus could be photographed. As Cave points out, it's not clear whether all the parts in the photo are from the same fetus, or whether apparent damage to the fetus was caused by a medical procedure or by decomposition during storage, or even whether the fetus was the result of an abortion on a miscarriage.

Jason Anderson, son of anti-abortion activist Deborah Anderson, praises his mother's use of graphic images thus: "She's really trying to open up people's minds to the horrific nature of this." And clearly the signs are more about horror than about information. Anderson may couch his mother's work in terms of "opening up people's minds," but photos like "Malachi" — provenance uncertain, informational content low — are more about turning people's stomachs. The stated goal, of course, is to win people over to the anti-abortion cause. But failing that, protesters might be satisfied with anger.

A fascinating throughline in Cave's piece is the implication that antiabortion activism is really as much about the battle as it is about the message. Of protester Dan Brewer, he writes:

He said there was something rebellious, something American, about standing up against abortion. In the past, he had occasionally held signs with bible verses emphasizing love, but they did not lead to as many conversations.

Or conflicts - like the time a man drove up on the sidewalk, running over Mr. Brewer's sign and forcing him to jump out of the way, he said.

Cave says the protesters he talked to "have endured insults, threats and even estrangement from their families because they have found what nearly every activist craves: conviction, camaraderie and conflict." Clearly men and women like Brewer and Anderson believe in what they do, but they're also energized by the feeling of rebellion, of standing against something. For Cave to identify this as a feature of all activism is either a courageous stand or kind of a copout. It's a copout in that it allows Cave to maintain some semblance of journalistic objectivity by refraining from criticizing his subjects directly — even though you sense he kind of wants to. This kind of hedging makes sense in a newspaper, but the idea that everybody's activism is just the same as everybody else's eventually leads into a relativistic morass. On the other hand, it's true that anybody who's ever, say, written a feminist blog post is familiar with the thrill of standing against. I think of myself as one of the world's most non-confrontational people, but even I've written some headlines that are close to dead-fetus images in their inflammatory intent. And so while Cave's generalization lets off the hook some people who probably shouldn't be let off, it also invites all of us professional and amateur opinion-holders to check ourselves. Which, at least in my case, is probably warranted.

Image via NYT.

Abortion Foes Tell Of Their Journey To The Streets [NYT]
Behind the Scenes: Picturing Fetal Remains [NYT]
The Foot Soldiers [NYT]

The goal of Farrow's strike, which she began 10 days ago in Connecticut, is to encourage President Obama to intervene in Sudan, which expelled all humanitarian aid agencies from the country in March. In addition to the blogging, Farrow's been doing a ton of press to promote coverage of the Darfur situation.

Whatever one's considered opinions of the best approach to this cause, the efficacy of hunger striking, of celebrity activism, or the guilt of watching a live hunger-strike while eating a large plate of cold sesame noodles (probably not as great as it should have been), no one can deny that the actress's heart is in the right place - or that the strike's bringing attention to Darfur, its stated aim. And, importantly, both blog and videos devote a lot of time to concrete ways one can help, contribute, or vocalize support. It's always an open question whether big-name involvement's benefits outweigh the costs of losing those people who will automatically regard it as trivializing - or whether the attention it generates translates to activism - but in this case we're guessing there really is no such thing as bad publicity. However, two things give us pause: 1. Farrow says she's mostly in bed conserving her energy - so what about the crying child in the background? and 2. She's taking fasting advice from David Blaine, problematic only because lots of folks we know say David Blaine's a jerk who treats people badly and in fact we did once witness his trying to cut the line at the Magnolia Bakery. But fasting, I guess, he knows.

Mia Farrow Blogs Her Hunger Strike [NY Times]

My Hunger Strike for Darfur [Huffington Post]
Mia Farrow Channel [YouTube]
Mia Farrow.org

Earlier: Emma Thompson: Celebrities + Charities = "Causeweariness"

Perhaps in honor of "Sexual Assault Awareness Month," anonymous Columbus activists have launched a vigilante-style public awareness campaign, in which they mark the locations of sexual assaults on the Ohio State campus with the stenciled words, "someone was raped here." On their website, the group Feminist Avengers (which denies responsibility for the graffiti) explains, "People have long used physical markers to remember tragedies past, from crosses and flowers at the intersection of a tragic car crash, to memorials at sites of disasters and violent crimes."

Although the website (seemingly sympathetic to the shadow organization) explains that the artists were at pains to stencil the words only in those locations where multiple rapes were reported - so as to protect the privacy of individual victims - the campaign has started a heated debate. While some have applauded the actions and the awareness of sexual assault - on the rise in Columbus - that it promotes, others say the images trigger memories of their assaults and increase their senses of menace. Writes one commenter, "The woman/ women who were attacked in that location have the right to handle what happened to them in their own way...It's the impact that matters, not the intent. Adding to someone's trauma to make a statement doesn't strike me as being remotely supportive or helpful."

As the city's Other Paper summarizes the controversy,

The local debate exemplifies a larger, nationwide debate surrounding radical feminist organizations-who has the right to speak on behalf of the women/survivors in question? Do jarring images promote awareness of sexual assault, or merely reinforce fears and existing stereotypes surrounding sexual assault? And should activists censor shock-campaigns to protect survivors emotionally, or do bold guerilla-style actions empower survivors?

It also brings up the question of the efficacy of guerrilla art as a tactic in the digital age. The last few months have seen several instances of feminist street art, from the absurdist performance art pieces of the British Muffia group, to Berlin's "feminist vandals" to the inscrutable commentary of France's street artist "Princess Hijab." While no one questions the importance of multimedia in maintaining the vibrancy of this or any other movement, the concern, as ever, is that such actions serve to dilute and sensationalize without providing concrete support. In the heyday of protest art, after all, such jarring tactics as those on the Ohio campus served as a wake-up call to societies genuinely sweeping important issues under the rug. But in a time when actual crisis and counseling centers exist only a few blocks away, as in the case of the Columbus graffiti, can feminists justify actions whose impacts might be problematic to actual survivors?

The artists would likely rebut that, in a time when such resources are indeed available, we run the risk of becoming complacent, treating rape as something manageable when by its definition it's not - and allowing an increased awareness of resources lower our guard to its dangers. The question is, will the benefits - the raised awareness, the sense of support for victims - outweigh the negative consequences? The sad truth is, any such action is unlikely to prevent someone disturbed from actually raping. But if it prompts campus safety or further awareness? Good. It also seems important not to treat all victims of assault as a faceless group who cannot be subjected to any reminders, because the horrible reality is that such reminders are everywhere, people deal with things in different ways, and the mixed response from survivors should serve to show, if nothing else, that this is not a monolithic population.

Feminist Avengers [Official Site]
Someone Was Raped Here [Other Paper]

Earlier: Have Merkin, Will Protest
"Feminist" Vandal Defaces Berlin
Princess Hijab

It's no secret that freedom of speech is severely curtailed under Egypt's National Democratic Party regime. Human rights abuses are rampant; some estimate that 18,000 are currently imprisoned under the state's permanent "state of emergency law" — although it's hard to say for sure, as people can be arrested without charges. Meanwhile, the government keeps a tight reign on media and political organizations, and basically prohibit public assembly. What can't they monitor? Facebook.

Facebook is growing fast in Egypt — the NY Times Mag piece estimates 800,000 users — and it's easy to see why: while the government might be able to crack down on web pages, social networking sites are too wide-ranging to block completely. As author Samantha Shapiro finds, young people — traditionally politically apathetic — have taken advantage of this mode of assembling and the relative freedom of speech provided by the internet's anonymity. As a result, Facebook is something of a hotbed of dissent - as well as the wide-ranging opinions and crackpottery inherent to online communities. While it makes for some strange bedfellows, it's also served as a means of organization previously lacking amongst Egyptian activists. Most recently, Facebook has served as the nexus for organizing support for Palestinians in Gaza; groups range from philanthropic to angry to activist.

Perhaps the best-known product of the Egyptian Facebook phenomenon is the April 6 Youth Movement, which Shapiro describes as

a group of 70,000 mostly young and educated Egyptians, most of whom had never been involved with politics before joining the group. The movement is less than a year old; it formed more or less spontaneously on Face-book last spring around an effort to stage a general nationwide strike. Members coalesce around a few issues — free speech, economic stagnation and government nepotism — and they share their ideas for improving Egypt. But they do more than just chat: they have tried to organize street protests to free jailed journalists.

In fact, when site founder Esraa Abdel Fattah Ahmed Rashid was jailed after organizing a strike on April 6, she became something of a cause celebre: known as "the Facebook Girl," she brought attention — probably not all welcome — to the power of the new medium. But despite the risks, the rewards have already been substantial: one blogger was able to post video footage of police brutality from his phone, while another has documented the harassment women face in street demonstrations: in both cases, they've helped bring the perps to justice.

It will shock no one to hear that our own government has taken note of Facebook's potential in this regard: the State Department is seeking to harness its organizational powers. But can it ever have the same power here? Ours is a culture in which "donating your status" qualifies as Facebook activism, and probably keeps company with gifts, pokes, in-jokes and all manner of first-world fol-de-rol. (Not that I'm guessing people don't waste hours in Egypt, too.) That's a luxury, sure, but also a very stark contrast. We talk and read so much about the philosophical implications of the internet in terms of privacy and interaction: it's interesting to be reminded of its fundamental purpose: to connect with others and to serve, not as a sinister or independent entity, but as something that works for people.

Revolution, Facebook-Style [New York Times Magazine - not online yet]

Suzman was a staunch critic of apartheid and often one of the few critics of the system among South Africa's ruling white minority. Born Helen Gavronsky in 1917, she married Moses Meyer Suzman in 1937. After returning to her studies in Witwatersand University, Suzman studied and became enraged by South Africa's racial laws. She eventually ran for Parliament under the United Party in Johannesburg's rich Houghton district and remained the district's legislator from 1953 to 1989. In 1959, impatient with her current party's tolerance for segregation, she created the liberal Progressive Party which later became known as the Progressive Federal Party. In Parliament, Suzman became a vocal critic of apartheid, often drawing criticisms for enjoying the the benefits of apartheid:

Diminutive, elegant and indefatigable, Mrs. Suzman confronted the forbidding Afrikaner prime ministers — Hendrik F. Verwoerd, John Vorster and P. W. Botha — who became synonymous with apartheid’s repression of the black and mixed-race populations. She was dismissive of the death threats she received by telephone and in the mail, and undaunted in her showdowns with the men she described as apartheid’s leading “bullies,” who in turn dismissed her as a “dangerous subversive” and a “sickly humanist.”

Shouts of “Go back to Moscow!” greeted her when she rose in Parliament, and, on at least one occasion, “Go back to Israel!” — a reference to her antecedents as the daughter of early 20th-century Jewish immigrants from Lithuania. After the 1976 Soweto riots, Mr. Vorster mocked her for beating with what he called her “pretty little pink hands” against apartheid, while secure in the knowledge, as he claimed, that she and other white opponents could continue to enjoy the privileged lives apartheid guaranteed without fear that their demands for an end to the racial laws would succeed.

“I am not frightened of you — I never have been, and I never will be,” she told Prime Minister Botha in a parliamentary exchange in the late 1970s. “I think nothing of you.”

For his part, Mr. Botha called her “a vicious little cat.” When a government minister once accused her of embarrassing South Africa with her parliamentary questions, she replied, “It is not my questions that embarrass South Africa; it is your answers.”

Suzman also drew criticisms from international anti-apartheid activists because she favored a peaceful transition to black majority rule in South Africa and was against the use of sanctions to pressure South Africa to change their policies. However, Suzman befriended many black South African activists, including Nelson Mandela, whom she visited while he was imprisoned.

Helen Suzman, Relentless Challenger Of Apartheid System, Is Dead At 91 [NY Times]
South African Activist Helen Suzman Dies At 91 [MSNBC]

Timmerman's goal in writing the book was to force consciousness of our clothing's origins — and how closely our buying habits are connected to the fates of those who produce it. Often, he says, we oversimplify the issue, and gives the example of the infamous Kathie Lee Gifford scandal, in which we learned the talk-show host's clothing line was being produced by child labor. The outcry led to a wide-scale boycott of Bangladeshi goods; in response, factories laid off child labor. Great, right? Well, according to Timmerman, who calls it "the toughest thing I came across...a really harsh reality," not entirely.

"It turns out that a lot of these kids kids actually needed to work — these children, just because they're not working in a factory, doesn't mean they're not working at other, way worse jobs in Bangladesh...all we're doing [in boycotting] is removing our guilt."

Timmerman is at pains to elucidate that he is "not a proponent of child labor" but does urge us to remember that while we may recoil at the words, it's important to take a realistic look at the situation. What do we really imagine will happen to these children if they stop working in factories? That they'll suddenly be given opportunities for education? As Timmerman points out, the alternative is more likely begging, brick-breaking or sex work. None of which is to say child labor is acceptable; just that our knowledge and concern — and activism — needs to go beyond easy shades of black and white. Timmerman also makes the point that as an educated consumer, it's important to make distinctions between factories and true "sweatshops" rather than condemning all foreign labor as such.

But is this the best we can hope for? A measured pragmatism that finds child factory labor preferable to child prostitution? The idealist in all of us doesn't want to believe it, and shouldn't. The ultimate and only course, as the author says, is addressing the grinding poverty that creates the situation. And none of this is to say that boycotting — and, more to the point, selective and educated buying — is not important. It's essential, and should become as second-nature as questioning the provenance of the food we eat, itself a relatively recent phenomenon. Many of us are quick to think of the plight of a factory-farmed animal but still able to buy a shirt at Forever21; it's this disconnect that Timmerman's book seeks to address. His point is, we need to take the time to learn where things are produced, and under what circumstances. (Alpha Consumer emphasizes the importance of looking up where things are manufactured — a small step that nevertheless connects us to the process.) Should people boycott what they find reprehensible? Of course, but with an awareness of the realities our actions create — and the impossibility of easy answers. We could all wear nothing but locally-made artisanal garb, and that's great, but it would do nothing for the poverty in Bangladesh; in fact, it's two different issues.

I'm not advocating the disingenuous piety of trickle-down economics, just saying that when we boycott, let's also do something pro-active, be it as simple as education or as old-fashioned as a donation towards sponsoring a children's organization. Not to be a total downer, but as a society it does seem like we have to wean ourselves off of a self-satisfaction we've come to take as our due for minimal sacrifice — while all the while not being overwhelmed by the reality of the task's scope. What say you?

Podcast: How Our Clothes Are Made [US News]

Related: Where Am I Wearing? [Amazon]

Baumgardner came up with the idea for the t-shirt while interviewing women for a documentary she's making about sexual assault. She's hoping that the shirt is "empowering" for people who experience rape, because it will help "divest themselves of some of the shame and secrecy of it ." But will embracing their experience in such a sartorial way really be so cathartic? We can all agree that rape victims have nothing to be ashamed of, but most people don't feel comfortable having any aspects of their personal lives broadcast, especially not on something so crass as a t-shirt.

A friend of Baumgardner's, Christen Clifford, volunteered to wear the shirt in public and also spoke to the Times. "There really are so few spaces where it's considered appropriate to talk about [rape]," Clifford says, referencing a dinner party where rape came up and conversation just halted. Call me old fashioned, but I'm not sure rape is something anyone is ever going to feel comfortable discussing at a dinner party. Isn't there some medium between hiding away in shame over something traumatic and wearing a t-shirt announcing it?

Rape Worn Not on a Sleeve, but Right Over the Heart [New York Times]
I Was Raped: Wear Your Voice Out [Scarleteen]

Related: Rape T-Shirt Could Be Even Bigger Than Abortion T-Shirt
Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future [Amazon]
Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics [Amazon]

• Rumors are flying that Britney Spears might appear on Sunday's Emmy Awards to apologize for her performance at the VMAs. WTF? What does she have to apologize for? She gave a shitty performance, she didn't go on a racist tirade or run over a crowd of schoolchildren. Britney, babe, don't let those assholes convince you to humiliate yourself even more for their ratings pleasure. Go home, take a shower, and play with your kids. [US Weekly]
  
• A 16-year old buy trailed a group of girl runners from his high school and yelled, "Keep going, or I'll rape you." The girls showed the little fucker they weren't scared and took down his license plate number and called the cops. Take that, punk. [NBC5.com]
  
• Holy crap, Beth Ditto from The Gossip writes an advice column? Awesome! [Guardian UK]
  
• Teen girls who diet are more likely to become smokers. Well, duh. If there's anything Kate Moss ever taught us it's that smoking fights hunger pangs and looks super sexy. [Reuters]

• After our 72-year old grandpa had triple bypass surgery, the first thing he asked the doctor when he awoke was when he could "have relations" with his wife again. That's why the news that seniors are still into humping came as no surprise to us. [USA Today]
• African pop star Angelique Kidjo has launched a campaign in her native country of Benin to encourage girls to get an education. [Reuters]
• Is today Paris Hilton's birthday? Scientists are close to developing a vaccine for chlamydia. [ScienceDaily.com]
• Two badass female NASA commanders will make history next month as they become the first pair of women to lead their orbital missions at the same time. Punky Brewster would be so proud. [MSNBC]
• MSNBC calls out Myriad, a company which is marketing their breast and ovarian cancer tests in TV commercials, for using scare tactics to increase their stock price, alleging that these ads make more business sense for Myriad than for public health or for educating women. [MSNBC]
• The debate over how to teach sex education in India rages on. Bizarrely, the situation there is really no different than the sex education vs. abstinence debate in the US — except that we're a freaking first world country and should be beyond this shit. [Economist]
• Eighty-nine year old Sylvia Levin is awesome — for the last 34 years she's spent six days a week getting people to register to vote, for free. Government experts think the 46,700 voters that Levin has registered are a national record. Think how many scarves she could have knitted instead. [LA Times]

• The STD of yore, syphilis, is back, baby, and on the rise in New York City! This obviously has nothing to do with Zach Braff being in town all summer. [NY Times]
  
• Kate Hudson may think that men are whores by nature (and that it's okay!), but nerds beg to differ. UC Berkeley math professor Dr. David Gale says it's mathematically impossible for men to have more sexual partners than women — we would tell you more about the handy-dandy equation he uses to back up this claim, but we didn't quite get it. [NY Times]
  
• An alarming percentage of women are unaware that HPV can cause cervical cancer and even fewer know that there is a vaccine available. Now you know ladies, so get thee to Dr. Pap Smear and thank us later. [BBC News]
  
• A 13-year old Egyptian girl died during a circumcision procedure, only a few weeks after a similar death prompted health officials in the country to ban the heinous practice. [Fox News]

• Maryland police accidentally let a sexual assault suspect go after they arrested him for molesting a 9-year old girl. The perv is still on the loose. Way to fucking go, Maryland PD. [Fox News]
• Yay, Ohio! The state's Civil Rights Commission is pushing for companies with four or more employees to grant their workers 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave, regardless of how long they've worked for the company. Wait, unpaid? That sorta sucks, actually. [NY Times]
• Irene Morgan Kirkaldy, a Civil Rights pioneer whose refusal to make room for a white bus passenger preceded Rosa Parks by a decade, has died at the age of 90. [NY Times]
• Dr. Howard Judd, whose expertise in menopause led to significant advances in estrogen and hormone treatments, died at the age of 71. How he knew so much about hot flashes, we'll never know. [NY Times]
• A new study shows that taking a birth control pill for an extended period of time can affect fertility down the road. [Telegraph]
• The latest trend in bodice rippers comes out of Australia, as romance writers are penning hunky heroes that are more like your average Joe. Eh, we prefer the perviness of VC Andrews incest-laden paperbacks anyday. [Reuters]
• In the stupid legal battles department, some schmo is suing 1-800-Flowers for $1 million for revealing his affair to his wife. Something tells us he's going to have a hard time getting a date after this. [ABC News]
• We're not sure where we stand on the Mexico City street vendor debate — aside from the fact that we think the tacos are super tasty — but we do think the woman fighting the Mayor's plans to clean up the city is one bad-ass great grandma. [LA Times]